5GoldGlovesOF,75

This makes me want to drink a beer. Not in the woe-is-me/I-need-a-drink way, but that it's almost nostalgic in it's rationale. I toast your logic. Before there was the internet, there were only saloons. At least then we had a built-in excuse for our statements. That said, I assume a lot of what's posted here is done sober...

That was one pinstripe defection that had most Sox fans merely shrugging. Bradley was waiting to take over, and he could actually throw. It kinda sucked when Boggs and Clemens went to NY specifically to win rings that they -- Rog in particular -- couldn't deliver for Boston. Youk was just trying to hang in there (we weren't saying boo). But the all-time worst had to be Tiant. He didn't have much left, but Looie should've retired as a Red Sox. The most clutch Sox pitcher in my lifetime, and that includes Pedro... Front offices can insist that "it's just a business", but that was bad for business.

Trading Price would be this fan's favorite move for a lot of reasons.

Chavis was just an example of guy who's young enough to make an adjustment, hit 20 bombs by July and maybe get selected to an AS roster... Judge never hit more than 20 in a minor league season and suddenly cranked 52 as a rookie. I don't feel as optimistic as I am realistic about the Sox current roster as being certainly capable -- as is -- to win 90+ games. The star players are all still young and have World Series bling, I'm not worried about second base in the modern MLB game (and apparently, neither is the FO), and Sale and Eovaldi both threw close to 100 mph in the second half last year. The season will swing -- like every other team's -- on pitching depth and emerging arms... and intuition tells me Bloom isn't even close to completing his staff. Meanwhile, posters can keep suggesting depressing trade proposals while we wait out the cold stove season, but I just don't see the Red Sox dealing any fan favorites for pennies on the dollar.

Not all additions that make a difference are big name signings. Take, for example, another recent 84-win team that improved to 91 wins and back into contention: in the winter they signed a former NL batting champ to DH, and he only hit .231; in the summer they traded for a 27-year old starter who had finished third in the Cy Young two years before... and he went 4-7 (and they couldn't wait to get rid of him). "Luckily", that club got record-breaking production from a rookie outfielder, and had another young starter blossom into an ace. Now I'm not saying the Red Sox have an Aaron Judge or Luis Severino ready to step forward, but it wouldn't be the biggest surprise in hardball history if a young guy like Benintendi or Chavis developed into an All-Star at the same time Darwinzon H. progressed into a stud pitcher. Teams continue to modify rosters in ways they think will help. I'm still not ready to say that the clubs that win because of their moves are lucky or smart, or even that the ones that lose are unlucky or dumb. If Bloom and co. keep stockpiling relatively young retreads and a few of them contribute, it's because it was part of the plan.

In case anyone missed this, here are quotes from the Red Sox actual GM (BOH) from the winter meetings: "Winning is the most important thing. Winning is number one." "What we're trying to do this offseason is number one make sure that we're in a position to contend in 2020 and to make the postseason and do some damage and see what happens." “Our owners made it clear that we would love to get under the CBT (Competitive Balance Tax) threshold if possible, that’s a goal of ours. But we’re not going to do it at the expense of not putting the team on the field that our fans deserve”. https://www.clnsmedia.com/red-sox-gm-brian-ohalloran-says-team-prioritizing-winning-payroll-goal/

Or bounce back to finish first the next three years, including the best season in franchise history. Every year is different; it's just the way things are now in baseball.

There's not even a debate here. Every team that is good or great has players who have good to great seasons. Were the '27 Yankees just lucky they had two batters who each hit more home runs than any other player before in MLB history? Were the Miracle Mets just lucky when they made all those great catches in the '69 Series to upset Baltimore? Nope, they were just better. Was Cora lucky whenever he pinch hit Devers or Nunez or Moreland in the '18 postseason and they all came through? No, because that's why he made those moves. A lot of other managers try moves or non-moves that don't work out, and that's what separates the seasons.

Ah, Ortiz was just lucky that whenever he hit the ball, it landed in places where no fielders could catch them...

Moon, great job with the 2013 stats. The best players on those lucky Red Sox were their usual assets: Pedroia, Ellsbury and Ortiz, plus Victorino -- all veteran winners with rings. Their top three veteran starters -- Lester, Lackey and Buchholz -- all came into that season on a mission with something to prove. It's the kind of motivation that often drives a team that is overlooked back into contention... and it's why pundits should always be cautious making predictions based on the previous season...

Those '13 Red Sox sure were lucky to win the most games in the majors, score the most runs, beat the team with the best starting pitchers and highest batting average in the AL in the ALCS, and beat the team that won the most games and scored the most runs in the NL in the World Series. Boston was so lucky that year that it scored at least one more run than its opponent in 108 games...

The pessimism on this forum -- as well as the impudent optimism of a fan of a decade-long also-ran -- is understandable, since human emotions always tend to overestimate the latest outcomes. Going back to the title of this thread, what is truly more realistic: a team repeating mediocrity after one down-year hangover from its best season in franchise history, or a team returning to contention with the same basic core of star players just entering their primes who have recently won three straight division crowns? The Red Sox regulars are veteran professionals who are very good at what they do for a living and they haven't forgotten how to win. Some may be past their primes, but some have yet to reach their peak performances. Remember the confidence most Sox fans and employees had entering the 2019 season. It was a less than a year ago. We all know the brass has to make a few changes for a reason. But there may also be another reason they're not making many changes...

I like Dickerson, too -- he's a solid hitter and defender. Though I have to wonder why Bloom's Rays traded him after an All-Star season at age 28... I doubt it was just to sell high and maximize assets, since they cut the guy they swapped him for a month later. That was Daniel Hudson, who just closed the World Series, and is also available. Don't we need a closer, too?

It feels like it's the other way around to me here. I mean, old guys at a bar can debate a reported proposal like Price for Madrigal and Vaughn, and then have another beer, and when someone mentions throwing in Benintendi, can't you just hear the animus? "A starting pitcher and a starting outfielder for two prospects who have yet to make the majors?!?!" Replies may or may not include calculations, but there can still be rational arguments for and against. Just like there is in MLB front offices. All I'm ever saying -- based on what I read from the guys who do this for a living -- is it's not always quantifiable. Salary and years of control are hard data, but potential and/or projections are just conjecture (and yes, the latter pertains to vets, too, but at least they have established big league records). Would the Red Sox make that deal? Yes, to unload Price and get under the magic number, plus to beef up the farm. Would the White Sox make that deal? Not unless they thought they could win this year, which isn't happening. Is Bloom crazy to ask for that deal? Nope, not as a starting point in conversations (he probably hopes he can get just one of those guys for Price, but may have to settle for a game-used jersey from Yolmer Sanchez).

I agree with all of this; I want no part of Pederson. He couldn't start in LA, and I remember how bad he looked in the outfield in the '18 World Series. If the Sox plan on contending, then the modifications -- even if that includes trading an outfielder -- won't include downgrading their launch-angle defense from one of the best to the one of the worst.

Most of us are resigned to the fact that we're losing Mookie. But none of us RED SOX fans have ever said he will be easily replaced. But keep posting away, hoping against hope that maybe someone from the FO will actually browse by and say, "Hey, even fans on Red Sox forums say they're ok with it if we trade him". Mookie Betts will never be easily replaced. No other player can easily replace the only guy to ever hit five 3-home run games by age 26, because it's never happened before in baseball history.

According to my post #380, and a lot of writers with actual MLB sources, a lot of fans and professionals disagree with that site.

I don't think Seager and Maeda is an overpay for Betts, either. But again, that may be contingent on LA getting Lindor, too. It may actually be worth it to a franchise to take on all that salary and pay the tax if it gets them a title (it was to Boston, after all)...

Sorry, Moon, I know where you're coming from, but I can't read that statement and not respond: the only value the Dodgers care about this year is finally winning the World Series this year. That's why they're willing to make offers to high-priced free agent upgrades and discuss dealing from their wealth of prospects to land pieces that will put them over the top. This isn't my opinion; I'm just reiterating what all the pro writers from MLB and the Athletic have been saying all along. So if they can add Betts and veteran starting depth -- even it's Price -- that's more value than just Mookie... to LA in 2020.

Buy? The philosophers in the front office started their mantra last summer -- when I first heard it in an interview with LaRussa: "We stink, therefore we arent..."

How could you hate Mueller, who was just clutch... if I was a Yankee fan, I'd hate Pedro for sending Soriano and Jeter to the hospital in the top of the first (but not for pushing a maniac old coach who charged him). I'd also detest Manny, for challenging Roger for a high pitch that really wasn't close to his brain, or for just Manny stunts like walking to the dugout on a comebacker or refusing to take his bat off his shoulders vs. Mo -- on second thought, Yankee fans probably liked that...

Koji. It's still hard to believe (as it was then) in that near-perfect 2013, but Uehara had a year that surpassed any that even the great Mariano Rivera ever produced, eclipsing the Hall of Famer's career season-bests in ERA, FIP and WHIP. All while throwing 89 mph...

Except pitch-to-contact guys force teams to actually have to play quality defense if they want to win. That ruins all the plans of the anal. dept (dinosaur abbrev.), which would rather deploy second basemen in shallow right field (where it's often someone known more for a launch angle swing rather than the ability to make the pivot).

Wonder how many times he had the final say at the winter meetings and it was, "No deal" ...to other team's GMs or to his own "assistants" (who were in-house for years before he got here). I always thought it'd be fascinating to be a fly on the wall (fly ball off the wall?) in these meetings and privy to the names and proposals of trades that didn't end up happening. As the lowly roused rabble, guys like us never get to hear or read too much of the almosts, except maybe years later in someone's memoirs. Like in tbe '40s -- Teddy Ballgame for Joltin Joe; or in the 60s, when George quit for a day and John said, "Call Eric..."

The stimulator accepted mine! I'm cutting and pasting outta here...